Originally published on November 1, 2010 at David Horowitz’s NewsReal
If you rely on the Reich-wing, Tea-tard propaganda machine for your information, you probably missed the news about the sexually suggestive gift Sarah Palin received from Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio last week: pink panties!
But no worries, the unimpeachable left-wing blogosphere will bring you up to speed on all the relevant facts. Er, “facts.”
Under the headline “Sarah Palin Gets Pink Panties From Creepy Arizona Sheriff,” The Frisky‘s Jessica Wakeman shared the details of Sheriff Arpaio’s lecherous overture:
Great moments in “ewwww”: at a Tea Party rally in Phoenix, Arizona, on Friday, infamous anti-immigration Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio handed Sarah Palin a pair of pink panties. Yes, panties!
Other left-wing bloggers piled on, delivering the incisive commentary we’ve come to expect:
Reporting on “the panty package,” a TPM blogger joked, “No word on how Todd Palin reacted to the news.”
“You know your attraction to women’s underwear is a little out of control when you do things like this,” admitted explained apparent panty fetish expert Charles Johnson.
Ed Brayton, a self-identified “journalist” at ScienceBlogs wrote, “Strange women flying about from Alaska receiving pink panties is no basis for a system of government.”
“This is SO messed up…please tell me this is a joke,” said Pam Spaulding.
Name It Change It, a project of the Women’s Media Center that tracks sexist incidents in the media, called Arpaio “really damn sexist,” adding that the Sheriff’s “use of a national female politician to delploy [sic] sexism as a publicity stunt is deplorable.”
John Cole at Balloon Juice described the sheriff’s gift as “just creepy and weird” (right after posting the creepy and weird panty pic above).
And the ever classy Gawker offered this Photoshop of the governor’s meeting with Sheriff Arpaio:
So why haven’t more of us heard about the sheriff’s inappropriate, sexually charged gesture? Hmm … maybe because it never happened.
After meeting Governor Palin, Sheriff Arpaio tweeted:
Just got done welcoming Sarah Palin to our County. Had a nice chat and gave her a pair of pink underwear.
Add “pink underwear” to the moonbat mixer, blend until frothy, and BAM!: the sheriff has a creepy panty fetish.
Hey, lefties: learn to Read the Freakin’ Google (and not just when it suits your political goals). The oh-so risqué pink undergarments Arpaio hands out as souvenirs are the same ones he’s famous for selling via his charity Web site, PinkUnderwear.com, and they look an awful lot like novelty boxers (pictured on the next page):
His site explains:
When Sheriff Joe learned that Maricopa County Inmates were stealing their jailhouse whites, he had all the boxers dyed pink. Inventory control improved, so the undershirts followed – then the sheets, socks, towels, and everything down to the handcuffs.
The boxer shorts are now sold online and at charity events to raise funds for youth mentoring programs in Maricopa County.
But of course, at the mere mention of unmentionables by a conservative politician, left-wing bloggers began to work their knickers into knots, praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that Arpaio really did sexually harass Palin with a gift of pink lingerie. Hopes and prayers morphed into truth and facts, as often happens with this crowd, and the pink panty meme was born.
Writing at the fetid intellectual wasteland called Pandagon, Jesse Taylor delighted in using the sheriff’s tweet to analyze the psychosexual motives of the entire Tea Party Movement:
Not that I’m saying that the Tea Party may contain an incredibly disturbing psychosexual undercurrent focused on fetishizing powerful women that are still ideologically beholden to them, but f–k it, I am.
This is the sexually demeaning brand of “feminism” found at Pandagon and other left-wing feminist blogs. Souvenir boxers are an opportunity to sexualize and degrade politicians. Ideological opponents are smeared as sexual oppressors working to keep womenfolk enslaved and beholden. And the pleasure of sadism is the driving force behind conservatism.
But it’s the Tea Party Movement that contains a “disturbing psychosexual undercurrent”?
Oh, if only Tea Party women could be as enlightened as Jesse Taylor and his fellow bloggers on the Left. When will those dumb Tea Party broads get it through their thick, sexually fetishized skulls that Jesse knows what’s best for them. And he only hits because he loves.
Follow me on Twitter.
Originally published on August 14, 2010 at David Horowitz’s NewsReal
Last week The American Prospect revealed an unsettling workplace trend. This discovery is completely unanticipated, so prepare to be shocked.
When female coworkers are out of earshot, men sometimes talk about them. Just awful, right? And guys aren’t just discussing the work habits of their female colleagues — occasionally they mention their looks!
This is the new “sexual harassment”: not the groping, fondling, and obscene comments of yesteryear, but “what’s said about [women] when their backs are turned.” According to the Prospect‘s Ann Friedman, “behind-their-back comments are also intimidation and bullying of a sexual nature.” And this indirect harassment is even worse than dealing with run-of-the-mill lewdness from male coworkers.
[G]iven that networking and reputation are keys to success in many professions, what people say about you is arguably more important than what they say to your face. If your professional contacts are talking about your legs rather than your résumé, you’re at a disadvantage. I know how to handle direct sexist comments. It’s much harder to think about how to shut down a conversation about me that I may not even be aware of.
Watch out, guys: if you’re hanging out at the bar after work, be sure to limit the leg talk to women who aren’t coworkers. Unless, of course, the owners of said legs are around to “handle” the comments. Got it?
Some of the guys you talk to about women are our friends — and they tell us what you’re saying. That’s how I found out that a female editor I know had garnered a totally unwarranted reputation as a flirt. How I know that a certain male editor likes to make side comments about the bodies of female interns. How I heard about an older male co-worker who wistfully expressed that he wishes he were 20 years younger so he could hit on the young women at the office.
So, let me get this straight. It’s intimidation and bullying for a man to pine for his youth when he would have had a better chance with young women at the office. It’s harassment for a guy to talk to his office buddies about the way interns look. And gossiping about the flirty personality of a coworker is completely out of bounds (when men do it).
Where exactly is the chauvinism here?
There’s nothing sexist about guys digging chicks and vice versa. In fact, I’ll let Ann Friedman in on a little secret: it’s kind of how we keep the human species going. Simply talking about who’s hot (or not) is a common and harmless pastime, even when it involves one’s colleagues. And if Friedman was honest, she’d admit that talking about how coworkers look is something both sexes engage in. Equally.
But this isn’t about honesty, it’s about grievance mongering. Club Victimhood is open for business and Friedman is on hand to distribute all access passes. Dreaming up new classes of oppression and new categories of victimhood is how the so-called feminists on the Left build support for their movement. As with all flavors of Marxism, leftist feminism can’t exist without ginned up resentment among the “oppressed.” The social revolution will never come if the Left allows people to be content with their lives and secure in their equality as human beings.
And so we have the latest complaint for the perpetually aggrieved to latch onto: indirect sexual harassment. Have fun at work on Monday, fellas!
Follow Jenn on Twitter.
Originally published on August 8, 2010 at David Horowitz’s NewsReal
Imagine: you’re paying $30,000 a year to send your kid to college and she calls to tell you her class schedule. “Monday and Wednesday mornings I’m taking ‘The Phallus’ and Tuesday and Thursday I have ‘Rednecks, Queers, and Country Music.’”
“You’re taking the what?”
These course titles aren’t a joke.
Women’s studies has long been a field in which scholarship takes a backseat to leftist activism and radical feminist politics. Although the discipline has “evolved” to encompass gender and sexuality studies, campus programs remain ideologically sterile laboratories designed to indoctrinate students into the ins and outs of the live-action role playing game they call feminism.
Typically gender studies departments are nothing more than vocational training programs for progressive activists. The political litmus tests and radical feminist indoctrination administered by these programs are well documented in One-Party Classroom by David Horowitz and Jacob Laskin. When students sign up for classes like “Introduction to Women’s Studies” at Penn State, they may not realize they’re getting a “course in (rather than about) the ideology of radical feminism.”
But not all gender studies classes have such innocuous titles. Here are 10 hit-you-over-the-head ridiculous gender and women’s studies courses offered by American colleges and universities, starting with The Unbearable Whiteness of Barbie. Read more
Originally published on July 19, 2010 at David Horowitz’s NewsReal
“That’s not Sarah Palin. It’s a man, baby!”
Is there a new Austin Powers film hitting the theaters? No, that’s just the catty sentiment in Eleanor Clift’s oh so magnanimous Newsweek column welcoming conservative women into the “feminist” fold. And Sarah Palin isn’t just any man: she’s anti-Semitic Holocaust revisionist Pat Buchanan. In drag.
Desperate to contribute something new to the earthshakingly important national conversation on whether Palin and her “mama grizzlies” are allowed to call themselves feminists, Clift offers conservative women a grudging olive branch slathered in sneering contempt:
Thirty years late to the battle for women’s rights, they’re claiming the mantle of feminism.
It’s nice they’re embracing feminism after demonizing the term for so long, and I welcome them to the arena. Let’s see if they can do for women what their sisters on the left have done since the ’70s, breaking down the barriers for women in all areas of American life including politics.
I think we know where Clift can stick that olive branch.
Clift’s phony magnanimity doesn’t begin to mask the true purpose of her column: to continue the Left’s mission to destroy Palin with hateful smears and weaponized misogyny. Using an unnamed Republican as her mouthpiece, Clift opts for a bizarre twist on the tired “Bush in a skirt” attack:
A Republican source says Palin is nothing new, she’s really Pat Buchanan in drag—the same issues except that her reality show is a lot more gripping. The media went overboard for Buchanan in 1996 when he won the New Hampshire primary, defeating establishment favorite Bob Dole. But the insurgent campaign of a former Nixon speechwriter can’t compare with the ongoing soap opera of the Palins. Bristol and Levi together again!
When I ran the Palin-as-Buchanan theory past another Republican, a woman this time, she said that was an insult to Buchanan, who is deeply serious and has thought about these issues. She doesn’t agree with his conclusions, but he rode the rocket at a moment in time, just as Palin is poised to do.
When Pat Buchanan is stuck for a column idea, he regurgitates al-Qaeda propaganda or spews Holocaust revisionism and calls it a day. Sarah Palin is a tireless supporter of Israel. Buchanan compared the “Free Gaza” flotilla passengers to civil rights protesters. Palin denounced the “vicious thugs” for their staged provocation of our ally.
Pat Buchanan’s name is nearly synonymous with Nazi apologia. He defends Nazi war criminals, lauds Hitler’s “genius,” and rants about Jewish conspiracies. His vile, anti-Semitic columns are an embarrassment to the Right. (Is it any wonder MSNBC keeps him around?)
Anyone else having trouble seeing the similarity between Palin and Buchanan?
There’s no comparison. Eleanor Clift is simply playing the Left’s Mad Libs-style smear game:
[conservative woman we hate] is [nasty conservative man] in [something that confers faux femininity]
The blanks were there; Clift just filled them in:
[Sarah Palin] is [Pat Buchanan] in [drag]
This is an insult used time and again to delegitimize women on the Right by turning them into mannish faux women. Nikki Haley is “little more than Mark Sanford in drag,” Carly Fiorina is “Dick Cheney in a skirt,” and Sarah Palin is all of the above and more: George Bush in a skirt, Dan Quayle with an up-do, and of course, Dick Cheney in lipstick.
See the pattern?
Only “progressive” women qualify as Real Women; Palin, Haley, and other “mama grizzlies” are merely masquerading as female by decorating themselves with skirts, up-dos, lipstick and other trappings of womanhood. The goal of this misogynist attack is to dehumanize the target by casting her out of her very gender.
Clift takes this strategy one step further by smearing Palin as a sub par transvestite version of one of the most detestable men on the American Right. She pretends to welcome Palin into the leftist sisterhood, hoping Palin will take the bait and subject herself to a good ol’ fashioned hazing.
Not. Gonna. Happen.
Sarah Palin and the nation’s conservative women aren’t looking for Eleanor Clift’s approval. We don’t need permission to use the feminist label that’s been trampled and abused by the Left during their multi-decade assault on women via Big Daddy Government. And we’re not fooled by thinly veiled contempt couched in condescending acceptance of mama grizzlies.
Update: Doug Brady at Conservatives4Palin.com reminds us, “This isn’t the first time the Palin-obsessed Clift has tried to tie her to Buchanan.” Read the whole thing at C4P.
Originally published on July 6, 2010 at David Horowitz’s NewsReal
Is there any limit to the cruelty of the American conservative? These vicious sadists take great delight in harming people and reveling in their suffering, or so says Amanda Marcotte, noted expert on wha? huh? look over there!
The pleasure of sadism as [sic] always been a driving force behind movement conservatism. They’ve always taken a great deal of pleasure in attacking people’s livelihoods for the hell of it, as I know all too well. They’re [sic] always enjoyed sending a message that those who comfort the afflicted and afflict the powerful should expect pain and even ruin.
All that said, I think there’s a reason to think that sadism for its own sake is on the rise within conservative ranks.
Amanda Marcotte is the editor of the blog Pandagon and author of two books on feminism and progressive politics. Her first book was so “progressive” it had to be reprinted after outraged readers called for a boycott over racially offensive illustrations.
Let’s take a look at how Amanda defines “mindless sadism and cruelty.”
Sadistic and cruel: Conservative bloggers and journalists quoting her writing.
These mindless sadists published examples of Amanda’s religious bigotry, forcing her to resign from her cushy gig as a blogger for John Edwards’ presidential campaign. (Being quoted verbatim is so mean and unfair!)
Not sadistic or cruel: Defending the practice of female genital nicking in the United States.
All they do is prick your genitals, or make a small cut that heals over, but nothing is removed. You’re basically scratching the girl.
Sadistic and cruel: Andrew Breitbart’s offer of a cash reward for the Journolist archive.
Amanda quotes Andrew Sullivan’s condemnation of the power hungry Andrew Breitbarts of the world who “will do all they can to ransack your private life, cull your email in-tray, and use whatever material they have to unleash the moronic hounds of today’s right-wing base.” Hey, maybe she’s onto something. If anyone knows the ransacking of private lives, it’s Andrew Sullivan, cataloger of Sarah Palin’s private email and The Atlantic‘s resident expert in forensic gynecology.
Not sadistic or cruel: Delighting in ruining the lives of the Duke lacrosse players accused of rape.
Sadistic and cruel: The GOP’s opposition to Obamacare.
Republicans hate the poors and will do everything possible to keep them from getting health insurance. (For the sadistic pleasure, natch.)
Not sadistic or cruel: Forcing pro-life Americans to pay for abortions.
Sadistic and cruel: A GOP proposal to fund extended unemployment benefits with stimulus funds.
How dare the Republicans want unemployment benefits to be paid for without printing or borrowing money! This “pure, unadulterated a–holery” is because conservatives think the unemployed are lazy. If the unemployed don’t suffer, how will conservatives soak in bathtubs filled to the brim with the sweet, sweet tears of anguish shed by families in pain?
Not sadistic or cruel: Promoting third trimester abortions for women in psychiatric distress.
Despite her holier-than-thou attitude, thoughtless logic-free rants are typical of Amanda Marcotte’s writing. Her entire oeuvre seeks to demonize dissenting opinion with childish, shallow “explanations” of the conservative mind and malicious falsehoods about the Right.
Marcotte says that to counter anti-government histrionics from conservatives progressives need to put forth “positive, truth-based counter-arguments to raise people’s consciousness.” If only Get Opinionated practiced what it preaches.
Amanda Marcotte will never be an honest opponent concerned with truth-based arguments. She’s just another Alex Jones of the “progressive” blogosphere, a lying demagogue feeding her audience pre-digested hokum to nourish them with the validation they desperately crave. Like Alex Jones, she’s happy to peddle lies and conspiracy theories about the Right because it pays the bills and cements her status as Eternal Victim of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
As Amanda and Alex have discovered, hawking the absurd theory that deceitful wingnuts are trying to destroy your livelihood for sadistic thrills can always be counted on for a bit of Web traffic. Oh, and it doesn’t hurt to add that conservatives are all evil Bushco worshipers who hate freedom. And puppies.
Stirring up hateful resentment of the opposition might not be honest work, but stop thinking like a cruel and sadistic conservative. Professional buffoons need jobs too.
Originally published on June 30, 2010 at David Horowitz’s NewsReal
The American Prospect didn’t get much attention for breaking a huge story earlier this month: the mysterious disappearance of Ann Coulter.
Few of us realized she was missing, but luckily crack detective Paul Waldman was on the case. The Media Matters alum was determined to find an answer to the question no one else was asking: “Whatever Happened to Ann Coulter?”
Remember Ann Coulter? Seems like just yesterday she was Queen of the Right, the whole political world hanging on her every bile-laced tirade. Yet she’s all but disappeared.
Waldman’s fantasy that Ann Coulter “all but disappeared” is a deliciously desperate display of magical thinking. He doesn’t have a shred of evidence, but hopes that if he makes the claim over and over while wearing his lucky cardigan, his wish will come true.
Waldman “argues” that Coulter’s “shtick just got old,” and that in the Grand and Civil Age of Obama her “act seems somehow out of place,” even among the hate loving hate lovers on the Right. Oh, and she just can’t serve up piping hot wingnuttery the way Glenn Beck can:
It’s not that there isn’t plenty of hate on the right, but Coulter’s hate was just pure venom, without much point to it. She had none of the crazy conspiracy theories that have become de rigueur. She shot out in all directions, while the people at the top of the heap now, like Glenn Beck, are convinced they are driven by a complex and coherent ideology, complete with a Founding Father fetishism that would sound insincere coming from Coulter.
So she’s been left behind, never to grace the cover of a national newsmagazine again. Tragic.
Note Waldman’s wishful thinking in using the past tense to describe Coulter and her tragic descent into irrelevancy. He might want to have his mojo checked out, because it’s not having the desired effect.
18 months after the debut of Coulter’s Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America, the Kindle edition is still ranked #33 on Amazon’s list of top selling conservative books. The hardcover comes in at #43, and Godless: The Church of Liberalism is still in the top 100 more than four years after the initial printing.
In the last year I’ve seen Coulter on CNN, CBS, and ABC just while flipping channels. And of course, she does speaking engagements and makes frequent appearances on Hannity, O’Reilly, Geraldo, Red Eye, and other Fox programs.
For a woman who dropped off the face of the earth, Coulter also keeps her critics busy. A week rarely goes by without multiple Coulter-induced seizures at Media Matters. And in April, she was mocked as a poor role model for girls on the Fox show “Glee.”
But perhaps most telling of all, here’s a screen capture John Hawkins took of the five most popular Townhall columns:
Instead of imagining Ann Coulter into irrelevancy, Paul Waldman might want to hit her up for some career tips.